Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

b.sricola.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#31

Post by Xcelerate »

mortenjorck wrote: post #30

I don't want to be Mr. Negative here, but each photo in the post is a decent example of the inadequacies of a phone camera. The first is a classic low-dynamic-range night shot that would be much better served by a large sensor that can do a higher ISO; the second is a nice attempt at some depth of field but is only a fraction of the bokeh you'd get with a wide-aperture prime lens; almost all of the daytime photos hav…

> but the author is probably right as far as his current photography skills go. I don't think he'd stand to gain much from a higher-end camera at this point.

Yikes! Kind of harsh, don't you think? (I am not the author.)

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#32

Post by mortenjorck »

Xcelerate wrote: post #31
mortenjorck wrote: post #30

I don't want to be Mr. Negative here, but each photo in the post is a decent example of the inadequacies of a phone camera. The first is a classic low-dynamic-range night shot that would be much better served by a large sensor that can do a higher ISO; the second is a nice attempt at some depth of field but is only a fraction of the bokeh you'd get with a wide-aperture prime lens; almost all of the daytime photos hav…

> but the author is probably right as far as his current photography skills go. I don't think he'd stand to gain much from a higher-end camera at this point. Yikes! Kind of harsh, don't you think? (I am not the author.)

You caught me before my ninja edit! That was too harsh and I've changed it.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#33

Post by buster »

mortenjorck wrote: post #30

I don't want to be Mr. Negative here, but each photo in the post is a decent example of the inadequacies of a phone camera. The first is a classic low-dynamic-range night shot that would be much better served by a large sensor that can do a higher ISO; the second is a nice attempt at some depth of field but is only a fraction of the bokeh you'd get with a wide-aperture prime lens; almost all of the daytime photos hav…

Absolutely agreed. What he probably means is "good enough to show my holiday pictures to friends on a phone in a bar".

Of course it's true, that it's far more important to have photographer skills (find a good motive, angle, frame it right, lightning, etc.). That's something you can't buy though. Also he doesn't really shine in this regard, to be honest.

BUT, to support his point (and my last one), take a look at this: http://mostlylisa.com/worldtrip/ So again, it's the photographer and his skills and not the technical details. You'll quickly hit limits with a smartphone though (as you described in your post).

edit: Also, the main blog will show pictures taken with a full frame DSLR which simply wouldn't be possible with a smartphone. http://mostlylisa.com/

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#34

Post by aaronbrethorst »

A couple more tips:

* Creating a strong photograph is far less dependent upon what you're shooting with and more about what you're shooting. Instead of spending your cash on a Mark III or a Leica, take a photography crash course at your local photo school (Seattle people: http://pcnw.org) (see: times square and the bread)

* Don't be afraid to strobe your subject in the daytime. For example, in the second photo, I would've tried taking this in three ways: 1. as-is, 2. strobed, and 3. HDR. The background exposure is pretty good, but the flowers in the foreground are underexposed.

* Watch out for stray junk in the foreground. In the bridge photo, I'd crop out the errant flowers at the bottom of the frame (and straighten it).

* If you have a lot of gray sky in your photo, your camera is going to do its best to underexpose the photo. Watch out for it, expose for the foreground, and do post-processing if necessary (see the last photo of the bread).

And, on HDR: "Also, HDR is so 2007, natural photos are where its at."

Sure, shitty, haloed HDR is so 2007. If you do HDR right, though, no one will ever know. Here's my favorite HDR photo I've ever taken: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/3266221538/in/se...

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#35

Post by ronnier »

blhack wrote: post #24

Some of you are missing the point here. There are people who buy dslr cameras to take snapshots, and they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better. And then these cameras never leave automatic mode, and never have the kit lens removed. The point is that you don't need an expensive camera to take perfectly good shots [for most applications]

I'll admit it, you described me. Plus it's so awkward to take a large camera that I've just stopped using it altogether except for the rarest of occasions.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#36

Post by tuxidomasx »

shaydoc wrote: post #29

You can pick up used DSLR's really cheaply these days, may aswell have one, might fuel an interest in finding out about Av & Tv modes, and white balance...plus lens' are what really make the big difference....I mean a canon EF 85mm 1.2 is gonna take a hell of a shot.... DSLR's take wonderful photographs, they are not comparable to a phone camera. Sure if you are taking snaps, I can sort of relate to the point, but do…

DO you have any recommendations of online resources for getting started with amateur photography, specifically using DSLRs?

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#37

Post by jerryr »

liotier wrote: post #15
marban wrote: post #12

At that size or low ISO, almost every picture looks OK. I assume the OP never stretched the capabilities of a real camera.

All of those picture beg for some basic color balance... But that is usually a post-processing move.

Hey, do you happen to know of any authoritative tutorials or references for color balance? Exposure gets a ton of attention, but I only ever seem to find mechanical posts on color--like step-by-step instructions on using Photoshop's color tools, but without explanation of what you're trying to achieve. I think I have a terrible understanding of color balance and I'd like to improve it.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#38

Post by Lennington »

Xcelerate wrote: post #31
mortenjorck wrote: post #30

I don't want to be Mr. Negative here, but each photo in the post is a decent example of the inadequacies of a phone camera. The first is a classic low-dynamic-range night shot that would be much better served by a large sensor that can do a higher ISO; the second is a nice attempt at some depth of field but is only a fraction of the bokeh you'd get with a wide-aperture prime lens; almost all of the daytime photos hav…

> but the author is probably right as far as his current photography skills go. I don't think he'd stand to gain much from a higher-end camera at this point. Yikes! Kind of harsh, don't you think? (I am not the author.)

Not harsh at all. The photos the author posted are just snapshots, any camera (or person) could take them. If he had a higher-end camera he could learn more about photography, but if his aim is just to take snapshots of daily life then of course his phone will be the best tool for it.

Re: You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

#40

Post by analog »

blhack wrote: post #24

Some of you are missing the point here. There are people who buy dslr cameras to take snapshots, and they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better. And then these cameras never leave automatic mode, and never have the kit lens removed. The point is that you don't need an expensive camera to take perfectly good shots [for most applications]

I actually think they will make your photos better. Better glassware = better image. Now that's not to say that you can't take an OK, or even a great image on a phone, but you will definitely start to run up against technical limitations sooner. Low light, fast movement, anything where you need a quick reaction time to capture a moment. Any of these conditions and you'll get average images from a camera phone.
Post reply on HN